Rod Dreher writes:
Father Andrew Stephen Damick wonders why
Americans are so ignorant of and indifferent to Christians in the Middle East.
Excerpts:
I am married to an American of Palestinian ancestry.
People sometimes ask me if that means my wife is Muslim. She is not. She is an
Orthodox Christian. Her father is an Orthodox Christian. His father was an
Orthodox Christian. And so on.
They’re actually not really sure how far back their Christianity goes, but the family originally came from Antioch (which is now in Turkey but was a major Syrian capital in the Roman Empire).
I once asked when the family became Christian. One of my wife’s relatives answered, “When Jesus rose from the dead.” There’s a good chance that that’s roughly correct.
They’re actually not really sure how far back their Christianity goes, but the family originally came from Antioch (which is now in Turkey but was a major Syrian capital in the Roman Empire).
I once asked when the family became Christian. One of my wife’s relatives answered, “When Jesus rose from the dead.” There’s a good chance that that’s roughly correct.
When the Apostles made their missionary journeys to the
uttermost parts of the earth, history doesn’t say that they skipped the rest of
the Middle East and headed straight for Europe. No, they immediately began
founding Christian communities right in their own neighborhood.
Two major Syrian cities—Antioch and Damascus—figure quite large in early Christian history. They are mentioned in the New Testament. They are still home to Christians.
Two major Syrian cities—Antioch and Damascus—figure quite large in early Christian history. They are mentioned in the New Testament. They are still home to Christians.
More:
American Christians’ inability to see Middle Eastern
Christians for who they are—not just fellow Christians, but human beings who
are suffering and dying—contributes to the marginalization of some of the most
persecuted people in the world, hastening their erasure from history.
Read the whole thing. I suppose I can thank Ted Cruz for
making me more aware of my responsibilities to these people than I was before
he mouthed off.
My friend Peter Lawler worries that I have “obsessed a lot more than is good for [my] our our mental
health” about the
Cruz speech and what it means. He may be right.
But given the life-or-death
stakes for the Middle Eastern Christians, and given how ignorant and/or
indifferent Americans are to their presence and their fate, I think we have a
long way to go before we can be accused of obsessing too much, or even
“obsessing” at all, about this issue.
In case you missed it, here’s Ross Douthat’s final word on the controversy.
It’s quite good. Excerpt:
And so yes: In the best
of all possible worlds, Maronite and Coptic and Assyrian Christian would indeed
all be standing shoulder to shoulder with Israelis (and moderate Muslims) in
the struggle against terror.
But in this world, most Middle
Eastern Christians are in one of the following three positions relative to
Israel:
It’s an occupying power, at best a lesser evil (compared to Hamas) but certainly not a benevolent ally by any reasonable definition of the term; it’s an erstwhile ally which they feel left them to reap the Islamist whirlwind after years of loyal cooperation; or it’s a far-off country with few ways to aid them and which they stand to face a great deal of immediate danger for being associated with in any way.
Combine these positions with the stark reality of ongoing genocide, and I think it should be clear why so many of us think Cruz was wrong to address an audience of Middle Eastern Christians as he did:
Because the propositions he was advancing are a description of how an ideal world might be, not of the world they actually inhabit, and because it’s unreasonable to ask people whose communities are on the knife’s edge of destruction to pay homage to a vision that they either have good historical reasons to dissent from, or feel they cannot endorse for fear of making their own situation worse.
It’s an occupying power, at best a lesser evil (compared to Hamas) but certainly not a benevolent ally by any reasonable definition of the term; it’s an erstwhile ally which they feel left them to reap the Islamist whirlwind after years of loyal cooperation; or it’s a far-off country with few ways to aid them and which they stand to face a great deal of immediate danger for being associated with in any way.
Combine these positions with the stark reality of ongoing genocide, and I think it should be clear why so many of us think Cruz was wrong to address an audience of Middle Eastern Christians as he did:
Because the propositions he was advancing are a description of how an ideal world might be, not of the world they actually inhabit, and because it’s unreasonable to ask people whose communities are on the knife’s edge of destruction to pay homage to a vision that they either have good historical reasons to dissent from, or feel they cannot endorse for fear of making their own situation worse.
Do not miss Yair Rosenberg’s excellent piece in Tablet about the
controversy. He points out that prominent Jews like Ronald S. Lauder
and Rabbi Jonathan Sacks have been speaking out against anti-Christian persecution. And the list goes on. We Christians must not forget the witness of
these Jewish brothers of ours. Excerpt:
The takeaway from all this should
be clear: Whether or not one thinks Cruz was justified in his walkout, the
tempest in the tea party over his actions must not be allowed to obscure the
pressing plight of Christians in the birthplace of their faith, and our Jewish
obligation to stand in solidarity with them.
No comments:
Post a Comment